DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 06/11/2025.
The Examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment filed on 06/11/2025 in which amendments were submitted.
Claims 18-37 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 01/16/2025 are noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “… said credit access instrument” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 19-28 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites “… said credit access instrument” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 30-37 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites “… the first gaming machine” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 30-37 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 recites “receiving a request for access to funds … via an input provided by said player to an input device of a gaming machine…” and “receive a request for access to funds … via input to an interface to said casino credit system server.” It cannot be determined whether one request received by two paths or two distinct requests is required. Clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 35 recites that the request for access to funds “is received via input to a gaming machine.” Claim 29 already requires a request via “an input provided by said player to an input device of a gaming machine.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The examiner follows a two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106.
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a method of providing casino credit in claims 18 to 28 and a system for providing gaming credit in claims 29 to 37. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitations of each independent claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites extending credit to a player, tracking the resulting debt, and settling it. These limitations are fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The creditworthiness evaluation and the comparison of a requested amount with the remaining limit, can be practically performed in the human mind through mental processes (for example, observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion)(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Computerized processing of credit applications has been held to be directed to an abstract idea. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The limitations of the independent and dependent claims include the following abstract ideas below in italicized claim language:
Independent claim 18, and its dependent claims 19-28 recite: “18. (New) A method of providing casino credit to a player, relative to a gaming system, comprising the steps of:
accepting an application for credit from a player, said application including information identifying said player (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice);
processing, via a casino credit system server comprising a processor, a memory and machine-readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor (additional elements), said application comprising determining if at least one qualifying criteria for issuance of a casino credit instrument has been met (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice);
if so, issuing said casino credit instrument comprising generating, via said processor of said casino credit system server, a casino credit instrument record which comprises information which identifies said casino credit instrument, an amount of available credit up to a maximum credit limit, a credit access period and settlement terms comprising a redemption period (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice);
storing said record in said memory associated with said casino credit system server (additional element);
receiving a request for access to funds from said casino credit instrument via input to an interface to said casino credit system server (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice);
confirming, via said casino credit system server, availability of funds in response to said request based upon an amount of said requested funds in relation to an amount of available remaining credit up to said maximum credit limit (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice);
permitting said player to access said funds when said availability is confirmed (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice);
permitting said player to redeem all or part of any credit accessed during said credit access period (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice); and
when said player does not redeem all of said accessed credit by a close of the redemption period, transmitting from said casino credit system server to a financial system, information regarding a balance of unredeemed accessed credit associated with said credit access instrument and converting said balance to an amount due associated with a financial instrument of a financial system entity (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),”
wherein said financial instrument comprises a credit line (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
wherein said financial system entity comprises a bank (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
wherein said financial instrument has associated repayment terms (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
wherein said repayment terms differ from said settlement terms (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
updating said casino credit instrument record to indicate that said casino credit instrument is settled upon conversion of said balance to an amount associated with said financial instrument of said financial system entity (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
wherein said request for access to funds is received via input to a gaming machine (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
wherein said gaming machine comprises a housing, at least one video display configured to display game information, at least one player input device and at least one gaming machine controller (additional elements),
wherein said step of permitting access to said funds comprises transmitting monetary value credit to said gaming machine (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
wherein said request for access to funds is received from a mobile communication device of said player (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice), and
wherein said request for access to funds comprises information regarding an identity of said player and a fund amount (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice).”
Independent claim 18, and its dependent claims 19-28 recite: “29. (New) A system for providing gaming credit to game players comprising:
a database (additional element), said database storing information regarding a casino credit instrument associated with a player, said information including information regarding an amount of available credit up to a maximum credit limit, a credit access period and settlement terms comprising a redemption period;
a casino credit system server, said server comprising a processor, a memory and machine- readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor (additional elements) to cause said processor to:
receive information regarding an identity of a player of a gaming machine configured to present at least one wagering game in response to a wager placed by the player from a credit balance at the first gaming machine and a request for access to funds from said casino credit instrument via an input provided by said player to an input device of a gaming machine (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
receive a request for access to funds from said casino credit instrument via input to an interface to said casino credit system server (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
confirm availability of funds in response to said request based upon an amount of said requested funds in relation to an amount of available remaining credit up to said maximum credit limit (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
permit said player to access said funds when said availability is confirmed (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
process, during said redemption period, any received request for redemption by said player of all or part of any credit accessed during said credit access period (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice), and
when said player does not redeem all of said accessed credit by a close of the redemption period, transmit to a financial system, information regarding a balance of unredeemed accessed credit associated with said credit access instrument and converting said balance to an amount due associated with a financial instrument of a financial system entity (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice),
wherein said step of permitting access to said funds comprises transmitting monetary value credit to said gaming machine (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice), and
wherein said request for access to funds is received from a mobile communication device (additional element) of said player (abstract idea: certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic practice).”
The steps/limitations identified above are akin to a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus falls within the groupings of abstract ideas. The recitation of the method being computer-implemented and performed by a server/processor does not remove the claim from the mental-process grouping. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims are a casino credit system server comprising a processor, a memory, and machine readable code, a database, an interface to the server, storing the record in memory, and a mobile communication device, and a gaming machine comprising at least one video display , at least one player input device, and at least one gaming machine controller. The server, processor, memory code, database, interface, and gaming machine are recited at a high level of generality and merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The specification describes them generically in the following way: “[0065]-[0068] The gaming devices might also comprise computing or mobile electronic devices, such as laptop and desktop computers, PDAs, tablets and the like, which devices may be configured to present various wagering events, as well as game servers. Such system servers 40 preferably comprise computing devices which comprise at least one processor for receiving information, processing information or executing code or software, and generating an output, such as control instructions. Each system server 40 includes means for storing information or instructions. Such means may comprise one or more memory devices. Such might comprise RAM, ROM (including EPROM, EEPROM, PROM) or other devices.” The storing the record step is insignificant extra-solution data storage and output. (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, these additional elements in the claims do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. While this type of automation is an improvement in a general sense as opposed to performance manually, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Accordingly, Claims 18, 29, and their dependent claims, as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 18 to 37 lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) by the following considerations:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo);
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(b);
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).; and
The examiner also evaluates whether the additional elements add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (MPEP 2106.05(d)), which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)); or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo)).
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified under Prong 2, are generically claimed. Transmitting, determining, receiving and outputting data are among the functions recognized as conventional in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and the courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Furthermore, taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the claims do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to conduct an activity/game with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Additionally, under the Berkheimer standard, the Examiner takes the position that the elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional, supported by the following:
Patterson, US 2011/0065497 A1, ¶¶ [0032], [0054], fig. 7B discloses database server accessed by networked devices; methods for performing such EFT are well known in the art, and in one embodiment ACH software is used.
Walker, US 2005/0187012 A1, ¶¶ [0052]-[0062] discloses the gaming machine comprising at least one video display , at least one player input device, and at least one gaming machine controller.
For at least the above reasons, Claims 18 to 37 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 18-23, 27, and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0065497 A1 to Patterson.
Regarding Claim 18, (New) Patterson discloses a method of providing casino credit to a player, relative to a gaming system, comprising the steps of:
accepting an application for credit from a player, said application including information identifying said player (fig. 1, steps 102-104, ¶¶ [0027]-[0029] discloses to establish a line of credit, the requester of the marker account applies to the gaming establishment. The establishment receives identifying information such as name, account number, driver’s license number or biometric data);
processing, via a casino credit system server comprising a processor, a memory and machine-readable code stored in said memory and executable by said processor, said application comprising determining if at least one qualifying criteria for issuance of a casino credit instrument has been met (figs. 1, step 102, fig. 2, system 700 includes database server 702 and web server 704, ¶¶ [0027]-[0028] discloses a credit check is performed against the background of the requester and an appropriate credit limit is established);
if so, issuing said casino credit instrument comprising generating, via said processor of said casino credit system server, a casino credit instrument record which comprises information which identifies said casino credit instrument, an amount of available credit up to a maximum credit limit, ….and settlement terms comprising a redemption period (fig. 1, steps 110, 114, fig. 3 box 314, ¶¶ [0032]-[0034] discloses the authorized terms state that if the marker is not redeemed within a predetermined period of mine, the gaming establishment is authorized to deduct the marker value from the cash account by EFT (step 110); marker account information includes evidence of authorization, current balance, and itemized history of marker requests kept solely in electronic form (step 114); it also includes account limits (either a credit limit or the debit limit), outstanding balance, available balance);
storing said record in said memory associated with said casino credit system server (fig. 7, database server 702 hosts the account database; fig. 3, 316 ¶¶ [0045] discloses marker is recorded and entered into a transaction history file that is associated with the marker account);
receiving a request for access to funds from said casino credit instrument via input to an interface to said casino credit system server (fig. 1, step 102, figs. 15-20, ¶¶ [0028] discloses the gaming establishment receives a marker request from the authorized individual … such a request may come over a network connection, such as the internet, or through another electronic medium, such as a self-serve electronic terminal);
confirming, via said casino credit system server, availability of funds in response to said request based upon an amount of said requested funds in relation to an amount of available remaining credit up to said maximum credit limit (figs. 21-22, ¶¶ [0071] discloses the system 700 will then compare the marker amount selectively requested to the patron's available credit or remaining funds associated with the patron account number and the patron name. If the request exceeds the amount available, then the mobile device 710 will display the screen shown in FIG. 21, which will display the maximum value of the credit available or funds remaining on deposit) ;
permitting said player to access said funds when said availability is confirmed (fig. 1 step 114, fig. 3, step 316, ¶¶ [0045 discloses if the verification is approved, step 316 is executed wherein the line of credit is debited (the outstanding balance becomes $4,000, the available balance becomes $6,000, and the pending balance becomes $0) and the marker is issued to the requester. The requester is provided casino currency whose value is commensurate with the approved marker value);
permitting said player to redeem all or part of any credit accessed during said credit access period (figs. 42, 43, ¶¶ [0047], [0086] discloses screen 404 of FIG. 4 provides a method to indicate how much should be credited against the outstanding balance of the marker account … When an appropriate value that is less than or equal to the outstanding credit has been selected, either the screen shown in FIG. 42 or in 43 will appear, depending on whether the redemption is for the entire amount of the credit outstanding or for only a partial amount of the credit outstanding, respectively); and
when said player does not redeem all of said accessed credit by a close of the redemption period, transmitting from said casino credit system server to a financial system, information regarding a balance of unredeemed accessed credit associated with said credit access instrument and converting said balance to an amount due associated with a financial instrument of a financial system entity (fig. 1, steps 106, 110, ¶¶ [0032] discloses the software system of the gaming establishment automatically redeems markers by electronic transfer of funds when a marker reaches the predetermined age (step 110) and ACH software is used… [0030] discloses the marker account information so retrieved also preferably includes the bank routing number and account number for at least one cash account that contains sufficient funds to secure the marker. For example, the bank routing number and account number for a checking or money market account … the unredeemed balance is therefore transmitted to the banking system and charged against the patron’s bank account).
Patterson does not explicitly disclose “… a credit access period or redemption of credit accessed during said credit access period.”
Patterson discloses in figs. 1 and 6, steps 110, 112, and ¶¶ [0032]-[0034], [0051], that unredeemed markers are settled after a predetermined period . “The requester may prearrange with the gaming establishment a set of prescribed limits or criteria that may, for example, put restraints on the requester's gambling impulses such as by limiting the amount the marker account may be depleted in any given time interval or such as by prohibiting any request made from a certain table pit area or other location in the casino. The time interval between invoice cycles and the predetermined time period the establishment will wait before debiting the cash account by electronic transfer are staggered such that the cash account is only debited if the invoice goes unpaid for more than an acceptable period of time.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to record, as a term of Patterson’s marker account, a defined period during which markers may be drawn, followed by the redemption period Patterson already provides. Doing so limits the casino’s credit exposure in time in the same way Patterson already limits it in amount by time interval, with the predictable result of a time-limited line of credit.
Regarding Claim 19, (New) Patterson discloses the method in accordance with claim 18, wherein said financial instrument comprises a credit line (¶¶ [0027] discloses the draft is against a line of credit).
Regarding Claim 20, (New) Patterson discloses the method in accordance with claim 18, wherein said financial system entity comprises a bank (fig. 1, step 106, ¶¶ [0030] discloses settling against a checking or money market account identified by a bank routing number and account number).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, (New) Patterson discloses the method in accordance with claim 18, wherein said financial instrument has associated repayment terms, wherein said repayment terms differ from said settlement terms (¶¶ [0004] discloses the casino’s redemption period typically one to two weeks, the invoice period of thirty days, and the latter EFT debit. Because the downstream bank instrument and casino marker run between different parties, it would have been obvious for the bank instrument to carry its own repayment terms differing from the marker’s settlement terms).
Regarding Claims 23, (New) Patterson discloses the method in accordance with claim 18, further comprising updating said casino credit instrument record to indicate that said casino credit instrument is settled upon conversion of said balance to an amount associated with said financial instrument of said financial system entity (fig. 6, ¶¶ [0051] discloses if such redemption was made by electronic funds transfer, the invoice may show a tracking number that is associated with such transfer)(This constitutes updating the record to indicate settlement).
Regarding Claim 27, (New) Patterson discloses the method in accordance with claim 18, wherein said request for access to funds is received from a mobile communication device of said player (¶¶ [0028], [0038, fig. 2 discloses the authorized individual. Such a request may come in the form of a verbal request to a table operator, dealer, casino employee, cage operator, or other agent of the gaming establishment. In another embodiment, such a request comes over a network connection, such as the internet, or through another electronic medium, such as a self-serve electronic terminal, handheld devices including PDAs and tablet computers).
Regarding Claim 28, (New) Patterson discloses the method in accordance with claim 18, wherein said request for access to funds comprises information regarding an identity of said player and a fund amount (¶¶ figs. 15-23 depicts the request sequence including the patron’s account number and PIN, followed by the marker account).
Claims 24-26, and 29-37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0065497 A1 to Patterson as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0187012 A1 to Walker.
Regarding Claim 24, (New) Patterson discloses the method in accordance with claim 18, but it does not explicitly disclose wherein said request for access to funds is received via input to a gaming machine.
Walker discloses wherein said request for access to funds is received via input to a gaming machine (¶¶ [0037], [0040]-[0041] discloses in response to a predetermined player input at an electronic gaming device, causing a first number of electronic credits added to a credit meter balance of the electronic gaming device, without a player of the electronic gaming device having first provided payment. The credits are later deducted upon cash-out). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to accept Patterson’s marker request at the gaming machine and credit the approved amount directly to the machine’s credit meter as Walker discloses because Patterson identifies that the marker process is cumbersome, slow and prone to error and that redemption is time-consuming and inconvenient process or patrons. Walker’s direct crediting removes this problem, thus utilizing a known system ready for improvement with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 25, (New) Patterson in view of Walker discloses the method in accordance with claim 24, wherein said gaming machine comprises a housing, at least one video display configured to display game information, at least one player input device and at least one gaming machine controller (Walker, figs. 1A-3, ¶¶ [0055]-[0079] discloses the features of the gaming machine that includes a housing, at least one display device, at least one player input device, and at least one gaming machine controller).
Regarding Claim 26, (New) Patterson in view of Walker discloses the method in accordance with claim 24, wherein said step of permitting access to said funds comprises transmitting monetary value credit to said gaming machine (Walker, ¶¶ [0037] discloses addition of electronic credits to the gaming device credit meter).
Regarding Claim 29, (New) this claim is rejected for the same reasons above as Claim 18. However, Patterson does not explicitly disclose
receive information regarding an identity of a player of a gaming machine configured to present at least one wagering game in response to a wager placed by the player from a credit balance at the first gaming machine and a request for access to funds from said casino credit instrument via an input provided by said player to an input device of a gaming machine.
In a related invention, Walker discloses receive information regarding an identity of a player of a gaming machine configured to present at least one wagering game in response to a wager placed by the player from a credit balance at the first gaming machine and a request for access to funds from said casino credit instrument via an input provided by said player to an input device of a gaming machine (¶¶ [0037], [0040]-[0041], [0055] discloses in response to a predetermined player input at an electronic gaming device, causing a first number of electronic credits added to a credit meter balance of the electronic gaming device, without a player of the electronic gaming device having first provided payment. The credits are later deducted upon cash-out). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to accept Patterson’s marker request at the gaming machine and credit the approved amount directly to the machine’s credit meter as Walker discloses because Patterson identifies that the marker process is cumbersome, slow and prone to error and that redemption is time-consuming and inconvenient process or patrons. Walker’s direct crediting removes this problem, thus utilizing a known system ready for improvement with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 30, (New) Patterson in view of Walker discloses the system in accordance with claim 29, wherein said financial instrument comprises a credit line (Patterson, ¶¶ [0027] discloses the draft is against a line of credit).
Regarding Claim 31, (New) Patterson in view of Walker discloses the system in accordance with claim 29, wherein said financial system entity comprises a bank (Patterson, fig. 1, step 106, ¶¶ [0030] discloses settling against a checking or money market account identified by a bank routing number and account number).
Regarding Claims 32 and 33, (New) Patterson in view of Walker discloses the system in accordance with claim 29, wherein said financial instrument has associated repayment terms (Patterson, ¶¶ [0004] discloses the casino’s redemption period typically one to two weeks, the invoice period of thirty days, and the latter EFT debit. Because the downstream bank instrument and casino marker run between different parties, it would have been obvious for the bank instrument to carry its own repayment terms differing from the marker’s settlement terms).
Regarding Claim 34, (New) Patterson in view of Walker discloses the system in accordance with claim 29, further comprising updating said casino credit instrument record to indicate that said casino credit instrument is settled upon conversion of said balance to an amount associated with said financial instrument of said financial system entity (Patterson, fig. 6, ¶¶ [0051] discloses if such redemption was made by electronic funds transfer, the invoice may show a tracking number that is associated with such transfer)(This constitutes updating the record to indicate settlement).
Regarding Claim 35, (New) Patterson in view of Walker discloses the system in accordance with claim 29, wherein said request for access to funds is received via input to a gaming machine (Walker ¶¶ [0037], [0040]-[0041] discloses in response to a predetermined player input at an electronic gaming device, causing a first number of electronic credits added to a credit meter balance of the electronic gaming device).
Regarding Claim 36, (New) Patterson in view of Walker discloses the system in accordance with claim 35, wherein said step of permitting access to said funds comprises transmitting monetary value credit to said gaming machine (Walker, figs. 1A-3, ¶¶ [0055]-[0079] discloses the features of the gaming machine that includes a housing, at least one display device, at least one player input device, and at least one gaming machine controller).
Regarding Claim 37, (New) Patterson in view of Walker discloses the system in accordance with claim 30, wherein said request for access to funds is received from a mobile communication device of said player (Walker, ¶¶ [0093] discloses the gaming device 200 may comprise, for example, a telephone (e.g., to communicate with an automated sports book that provides gaming services), or a portable handheld gaming device (e.g., a personal digital assistant or Nintendo GameBoy)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights